What a laughin' stock this is. Obama didn't overturn citizens united. Or solve any other problems for that matter.

I think he's saying that the Supreme Court justices that voted for it were all appointed by Republicans, and there's a good chance the person who wins this particular election will be appointing a couple new justices at least...

I think he's saying that the Supreme Court justices that voted for it were all appointed by Republicans, and there's a good chance the person who wins this particular election will be appointing a couple new justices at least...

US President Barack Obama: The "worst president in terms of his record on whistleblowing"

The US government is celebrating the release of the 'Pentagon Papers' on the Vietnam War as a sign of its openness. The truth, however, is that President Barack Obama has taken a much tougher line on whistleblowers than his predecessors -- despite courtroom setbacks.

the policy says that this thread is supposed to be moved... so you're basically saying that if they follow the policy you're done with the board... as frustrating as it is that politics is a subject that is pushed out of the visible part of the boards, there's more to this community than political discussions and I really hope you wouldn't just go because of that

The phenomenon of child soldiers, like genocide, slavery and torture, seems like one of those crimes that no nation could legitimately defend. Yet the Obama administration just decided to leave countless kids stranded on some of the world’s bloodiest battlegrounds.

The administration stunned human rights groups last month by sidestepping a commitment to help countries curb the military exploitation of children. Josh Rogin at Foreign Policyreported that President Obama issued a presidential memorandum granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to four countries: Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. The memo instructed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that it is in our “national interest” to continue extending military aid to those countries, despite their failure to comply with the rules Congress passed and George W. Bush signed in 2008.

A thumbs-up for child soldiers from the pen of President Obama? Whitehouse spokesperson P.J. Crowley explained it was a strategic decision to ease the 2008 law. The rationale is that on balance, it’s more effective for the U.S. to keep providing military assistance that will help countries gradually evolve out of the practice of marshaling kids to the battlefield, rather than isolating them.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Crowley argued, “These countries have put the right policies in place… but are struggling to correctly implement them.” The New York Times reported that administration spokespeople also cited the countries’ crucial role in global counter-terrorism efforts.

Strategically granting certain countries a pass on child rights reflects Washington’s warped attitude toward the global human rights regime. The U.S. has failed to ratify, or simply ignored, numerous human rights protocols, and our ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has languished. Human Rights Watch points out, “Only the United States and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty.” (Although we did ratify two optional protocols in 2002, relating to child soldiers and other forms of exploitation.)

The White House Thursday enacted stronger rules to prevent the media from showing what's happening with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast.

CNN's Anderson Cooper reported that evening, "The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches -- 65 feet."

He elaborated, "Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can't get close enough to take that picture."

As the segment continued, Cooper expressed disgust with this rule repeating several times, "We are not the enemy here" (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Cubachi via Hot Air):

Horsepucky.. The man inherited two wars and an ecomony in a nose dive along with a repub party that voted for nada trying to save the sinking ship "Oops. He grew the deficit and goes down in history as the president that incurred the most debt ever in one term...ever. That's an accomplishment...if you're trying to ruin the country."

He did. No argument there. Bush was a nightmare. Obama pledged to change it and stop the wars, end gitmo, etc...and for the record, the congress was stacked with Democrats until 2010. So if he had it all sewn up tight, why did he not get his goods through before the stallwart, Tabbooma?

That lasted longer than I thought. Frankly, this board is the icing of how it actually is in life. Politics is always moved aside and it takes dedication to remain and be active, well informed and communicative of it. So those that don't like it, are actually doing a disservice to themselves and everyone else. These talks matter to all of our lives. What we can do, who we choose to be, what to say, where to strive and thrive...it takes effort, folks.

Tabbooma asks the same question, thinks instead of the whole party taking a middle of the road and supporting the president, some in the far left wanted to keep in that direction, just could not get the votes without all kinds pork tossed in. They, the Dems had a great opportunity and did not take it.

He did. No argument there. Bush was a nightmare. Obama pledged to change it and stop the wars, end gitmo, etc...and for the record, the congress was stacked with Democrats until 2010. So if he had it all sewn up tight, why did he not get his goods through before the stallwart, Tabbooma?

it was his first two years. He was still getting his feet wet... remember that was one of the points you had against him before he was elected.

So, settling in, he didn't want to be radical and make too many enemies. He was too nice of a guy and gave in to conservatives too much.

Yes, it came back to bite him in the ass, but at the time I can understand his perspective. He was trying to make friends in Washington, not enemies as you can catch usually catch more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

Republicans were out to make him fail no matter what he did, but he didn't know that yet.

His last budget was rejected by the entire congressional body. He has not worked with anyone and you're making an excuse for someone who was obviously unfit coming into his term. It's a bad argument. It makes you both look foolish and dumb.